Upgrade from Pioneer (and especially Bose)

Swerd

Swerd

Audioholic Warlord
When the speaker is an 8 Ω load, lets say all is well. But when the speaker drops to being a 3 Ω load, that will end up wanting to draw too much power from the amp/receiver and thus causing it to trip?
When an amplifier gets rated for power output, there must be an electrical load, an impedance, for it to drive. That load is considered the standard value for rating amps. Their power ratings always indicate an 8Ω load. Most or all amps now sold can handle loads of about 8Ω without trouble. Most can go below 8Ω without much trouble, but this depends on the speakers behavior. (More on this below.)

As the impedance load drops, the amp has to work harder to deliver power. With a 4Ω load, an amp has to work twice as hard. Some amps are robust enough to handle that. These amps often, but not always, come with power ratings for both 8Ω and 4Ω loads. In theory, such an amp can deliver as much as twice the power at 4Ω loads compared to 8Ω loads. In reality, this varies and is somewhat less the twice the power.

Other lower priced amps may not have a published 4Ω power rating, but under most circumstances, they can handle it. Other amps cannot. They can go into something called oscillation, a type of electrical misbehavior that can easily lead to amp failure. Most amps and receivers sold today have built-in protection systems that rapidly shut them down if oscillation is detected.
Now, when you say the minimum impedance is 3.1 Ω, does that mean that even though the speaker is simply rated as 8 Ω, that in reality there's a range (min to max)?
Below is a graph of a B&W 702 S2 speaker's Impedance (in Ω, solid black line) and Impedance Phase angle (in degrees, dotted black line). The vertical axis on the left side shows Ωs for Impedance, and the vertical axis on the right side shows the phase angle in degrees, from +90° to -90°. Both lines are plotted against frequency of the signal in Hz (on the horizontal axis).

I found this graph in review published by Stereophile. I couldn't find a similar graph for the more recent B&W 702 S3 speaker.
https://www.stereophile.com/content/bowers-wilkins-702-s2-loudspeaker-measurements
1671124222595.png

As you can see the Impedance (solid black line) is not a constant value – it varies with the frequency. We don't need to worry over the maximums, but are interested in knowing about the minimum impedance values.
  • What frequencies are associated with the minimum impedance values?
  • What are the impedance phase angles at those frequencies?
In the 702 S2 speaker, you can see two minimums below 4Ω. One is a bit above 100Hz, and the other is between 500 to 900 Hz, centered at about 700Hz. At the first minimum, the Phase Angle is
quite low, roughly -22.5°. But more importantly, the Phase Angle is lowest at 70Hz, and rapidly rises above that to as high as + angles at 200Hz. The text from the Stereophile page says this:
"The 702 S2's nominal impedance is specified as 8 ohms, with a minimum value of 3.1 ohms. My measurement of the impedance magnitude (fig.1, solid trace) reveals that while the impedance does lie at and above 8 ohms in the low treble and in two regions in the bass, it actually drops below 6 ohms through much the audioband, with a minimum value of 3 ohms in the upper bass. There is also a current-hungry combination of 4 ohms and a –48° electrical phase angle at 88Hz. Although technically this is an 8 ohm design, I think it should be used with amplifiers that are comfortable with 4 ohm loads."
The first low impedance value, at about 125Hz, combined with the low impedance phase angle, is likely responsible for this speakers requirement of a more robust amp.
 
Last edited:
Swerd

Swerd

Audioholic Warlord
What is Phase Angle?

Audio signals are alternating current (AC), not direct current (DC). The terms impedance and resistance are similar, but impedance refers to an AC signal, and resistance is for DC signals. AC signals have frequencies associated with the signal, as in music. You can think of DC as the same as AC, but with a constant frequency of zero Hz.

The math for DC signals is simple. The only thing important to know for DC resistance is the Ω value. But AC signals are like a sine wave. The math for AC signals requires that you consider the frequency and the angle. You have to know both the Ω value and the phase angle.

It helps if you think of voltage in an AC signal as a graph of a sine wave. First think of a circle, as shown in the lower half of the gif diagram. As you move around the circle, the voltage value changes. If you open up the circle and lay it out as a sine wave, you can graph the sine wave amplitude vs. time, as shown in the upper part of the diagram (below). To see this diagram as an animated gif look here: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/89/Unfasor.gif
1671128845516.png

If you consider both voltage and current, they become two sine waves. But they aren't in phase with each other. Voltage can lag behind current, or current can lag behind voltage, depending on what else is in the circuit.
1671127964293.png

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_characteristics_of_dynamic_loudspeakers#Impedance_phase_angle
In speakers …
Impedance variations of the load with frequency translate into variation in the phase relationship between the amplifier's voltage and current outputs. For a resistive load, usually (but not always) the voltage across the amplifier's output devices is maximum when the load current is minimum (and the voltage is minimum across the load) and vice versa, and as a result the power dissipation in those devices is least. But due to the complex and variable nature of the driver/crossover load and its effect on the phase relationship between the voltage and current, the current will not necessarily be at its minimum when the voltage across the output devices is maximum – this results in increased power dissipation in the amplifier output stage which manifests as heating in the output devices. The phase angle varies most near resonance in moving coil loudspeakers. If this point is not taken into consideration during the amplifier design, the amplifier may overheat causing it to shut down, or cause failure of the output devices. See Power factor for more detail.
I realize this gets complex, but I hope it helps.
 
Last edited:
rsharp

rsharp

Audioholic
@Swerd I really do appreciate all the extra info. It's always good to have a lower-level undertsanding of things.

Still, I am perplexed as to why a set of B&W 702 S3 speakers would lead to issues with say a Marantz SR7015. A couple posts ago I reported some measurements I made along with results of using the online SPL calculators.

Unless my math was horibbly incorrect, for our listening levels, the Marantz should be a-ok even when driving five channels.
 
lovinthehd

lovinthehd

Audioholic Jedi
@Swerd I really do appreciate all the extra info. It's always good to have a lower-level undertsanding of things.

Still, I am perplexed as to why a set of B&W 702 S3 speakers would lead to issues with say a Marantz SR7015. A couple posts ago I reported some measurements I made along with results of using the online SPL calculators.

Unless my math was horibbly incorrect, for our listening levels, the Marantz should be a-ok even when driving five channels.
I think you're fine at your listening levels with the Marantz. I wouldn't particularly want B&W speakers, tho :)
 
rsharp

rsharp

Audioholic
I think you're fine at your listening levels with the Marantz. I wouldn't particularly want B&W speakers, tho :)
Thank you for this reply; I feel better now about my calculations. I hear you though about the B&W. To be honest, I have so little experience with speaker brands. Owning Bose for around 30+ years and only adding a B&W center channel speaker in 2009. Prior to that, was using the built-in speaker of a Pioneer PRO-510 rear projection TV. I was quite impressed with the B&W center, so I always though about moving to that brand for all speakers. I do like the looks of them.

When the time comes, I do though want to look at other brands.
 
lovinthehd

lovinthehd

Audioholic Jedi
Thank you for this reply; I feel better now about my calculations. I hear you though about the B&W. To be honest, I have so little experience with speaker brands. Owning Bose for around 30+ years and only adding a B&W center channel speaker in 2009. Prior to that, was using the built-in speaker of a Pioneer PRO-510 rear projection TV. I was quite impressed with the B&W center, so I always though about moving to that brand for all speakers. I do like the looks of them.

When the time comes, I do though want to look at other brands.
There are lots of good speakers out there. B&W just doesn't particularly impress me. You have much yet to experience speaker-wise based on the Bose/B&W/tv speakers thing, tho :) Do you live where you can go listen to some (whether stores or even just a variety of craigslist guys selling their speakers)? Have you read some of shadyJ (James Larson) and other reviews of speakers here on audioholics? Good place to start....
 
F

fmw

Audioholic Ninja
@fmw Thank you. I'm beginning to wonder if I'm also an exception.

Here's what I did:
  1. Measurements taken of speakers from the MLP:
    • 14 feet from mains
    • 12 feet from center
    • 6 feet from surrounds
    • 13 feet from sub
  2. I played a chapter from Interstellar at the same level as we did a week ago. For my wife, son and I, we will play things loud, but not too loud. I put the Pioneer receiver's volume at the -25.0 dB mark. The particular scene as measured by the "dB Meter" iOS app running on an iPhone 14 Pro (I realize this may not be the best way to measure, but what I had access to). Phone was placed just in front of my face. Levels were:
    • Minimum (whispers): 31 dB
    • Maximum (rocket takeoff): 83 dB
  3. Subwoofer, though mentioned it was too small for my space (14 feet wide, 21 feet deep, 9 foot ceilings), did quite well for my needs. I definitely physically felt things. And to be honest, I really don't need to go beyond that.
  4. I read the Audioholics speaker sensitivy article and brushed up on related materials. I was an electronics technician in the Army around 30 years ago and now do software. Also very familiar with photography lighting dealing with inverse square laws. So while I am nowhere near an expert for home audio/video, I do love to get into the technical aspects of things and enjoy honing my skills for better understanding.
  5. Finally, I visited the SPL calculator site and did two sets of calculations:
    • Stereo: B&W 702 S3 speakers are rated at 90 dB sensitivty, so set that value, set Amp power to just 1 watt, distance of 14 feet and num speakers to 2. Speaker placement set to corner (18 to 24 inches from walls). The results here gave me 86.4 dB at the listening position.
    • Multi: With the above mains, the other B&W speakers I'm looking at are rated at 88 and 89 dB sensitivty. So I took the lowest value of 88, set amp power again to just 1 watt, distance of 14 feet, num speakers to 5 and same close to wall placement. The results here gave me 88.4 dB at the listening position.
So my own conclusions from this are:
  1. Assuming the sound level was correct and that at my ears was around 83 dB. Lets say it was even higher at 86 dB. Then for both stereo listening and movie watching, 1 watt of power would be enough.
  2. Even if things are off by say 12 dB, the amp would need to be at 16 watts per channel to compensate. Let's say that's for an 8 Ω load. And then if that drops to 2 Ω (I'm going below the B&W min here of 3 Ω to overcompensate and to keep math simplier), the amp would now need to be at 64 watts per channel.
  3. A Marantz SR7015 is rated at 125 watts per channel (2 channel driven), and if we believe the 70% value for 5 channels driven, that would be 87.5 watts. I realize that this is not much headroom, but I've really tried to exaggerate values here.
Am I missing something?
No. The speaker efficiency number provides the decibel level that is attained with 1 watt of power at a 6 ft. listening distance. Decibel levels in the mid 80's are pretty loud for most people. It is the equivalent of noisy traffic on a city street or a toilet flushing. You probably listen further than that so you may need a few more watts.

You have learned how little power is actually dissipated in driving speakers in a normal environment. You have gone way past what most home theater owners do in assessing a system. I don't think you are an exception. You have proven that with your measurements.
 
Kingnoob

Kingnoob

Audioholic Samurai
Understood. One thing at a time. Upgrading from bose will be a good first step in the right direction. I’m sure the B&W sub is ok for now, but it’s really expensive and for that money, you’re right, there are much better options out there. You have to take the upgrade path that makes sense for you though.
Dang B&W are some-sales genius if they can sell this sub 2k+
I know I saw another brand with same design for cheaper but cmon that’s tiny ! Neither one was good for much . Maybe a bedroom?
Magnolia had some bowers towers 2kea I couldn’t figure out why they cost so much they looked nice , but I don’t remember model was many years ago . Definitely don’t pick one bRand blindly because you already have it .
essentially paying a premium for the name, some brands like bowers just make subs for compact size not performance. For waf , mostly?
 
Last edited:
D

dalotissac

Audiophyte
Upgrading from bose will be a good first step in the right direction. I’m sure the B&W sub is ok for now, but it’s really expensive and for that money, you’re right, there are much better options out there.




 
Last edited:
ski2xblack

ski2xblack

Audioholic Field Marshall
Stereo: B&W 702 S3 speakers are rated at 90 dB sensitivty, so set that value, set Amp power to just 1 watt, distance of 14 feet and num speakers to 2. Speaker placement set to corner (18 to 24 inches from walls).
It is a good idea to be conservative with the input values when using that calculator. Going with an 8 ohm sensitivity rating and corner placement are "downhill with a tailwind" optimum conditions, which would leave little wiggle room/available headroom. It's better to err on the high side with power, as too much is just enough. See what you get inputting 86 for sensitivity and non-corner placement.
 
rsharp

rsharp

Audioholic
It is a good idea to be conservative with the input values when using that calculator. Going with an 8 ohm sensitivity rating and corner placement are "downhill with a tailwind" optimum conditions, which would leave little wiggle room/available headroom. It's better to err on the high side with power, as too much is just enough.
Check out my "#2" conclusion for the calculations I performed. It takes into account a 2 Ω load (below the B&W 3.1 Ω minimum) and even accounts for things being up to 12 dB off. So definitely conversative.
 
Kingnoob

Kingnoob

Audioholic Samurai
Upgrading from bose will be a good first step in the right direction. I’m sure the B&W sub is ok for now, but it’s really expensive and for that money, you’re right, there are much better options out there.




He didn’t buy that already did he? He should’ve went to subwoofer/loudspeaker section first. $2k+ for a micro sub is an ouch o_O it’s because brands like b& w tell you you gotta timbre match subs .
I personally like the look of there speakers just it kinda ends there, too pricey for me.
 
ski2xblack

ski2xblack

Audioholic Field Marshall
Check out my "#2" conclusion for the calculations I performed. It takes into account a 2 Ω load (below the B&W 3.1 Ω minimum) and even accounts for things being up to 12 dB off. So definitely conversative.
Compare the Marantz's $/w relative to the 200-300w options out there (Monoprice, Outlaw, ATI, Buckeye, etc.)

This is putting the cart before the horse, however. You may end up liking more sensitive speakers with benign loads, and be fine without external amps. So focus on speakers first.
 
rsharp

rsharp

Audioholic
Compare the Marantz's $/w relative to the 200-300w options out there (Monoprice, Outlaw, ATI, Buckeye, etc.)
I neither need nor want any external power amps. An all-in-one AVR will suit my needs just fine.

For the Marantz (or whatever AVR I get), I need many things beyond decent wattage output. So the price of the AVR isn't just about the wattage output.
 
H

Hobbit

Senior Audioholic
Some of us do need separates. I do. I absolutely could not do without an AVP and separate amps to power my system. It has 18 power amp channels for one thing, and a receiver would not even get close to the ball park of the power demands of this system.
Most AVR's have outputs to run external amps. At least the ones I have had did. I do a hybrid setup with my Denon. The main speakers use external amps and surrounds on the AVR's amps.

Adding up watts can get you trouble. You'll rarely, if ever, draw that kind of power consistently while in use. Many of the speakers are off or very low volume most the time and are easy loads. The big sound surges are handled by the caps in the amps.

Kind of like I read posts about people "needing" to add a more powerful circuit to their home after adding up their max wattages of all their devices. The only time I ever blew the 15amp breaker in 12 years in my house was when my GF plugged her electric car (8amp in the standard outlet charge mode) into the same circuit. AND, it didn't blow until after the electric fireplace insert heater kicked on (a solid 6-12 amp while it's heating), which, btw, I run all the time.

Note, I just looked at the receiver the op mentioned. It doesn't have pre-outs. Coming from separates "back in the day" having the pre-outs was a priority.

Still, back when my Ref 20 became aged and started dying, I found an AVR (with pre outs) offered a lot more functionality and better performance to price than an AVP. Plus, having the internal amps turned out to be a bonus. I was able to add (more) surrounds without needing to buy another amp.
 
Last edited:
rsharp

rsharp

Audioholic
Just to wrap up this particular thread, I decided on replacing all speakers and got part of the shipment today.

I went with all B&W:
  • Pair of 702 S3 replaces the Bose 601 IV (mains)
  • HTM71 S3 replaces the B&W XTC (center)
  • Pair of 705 S3 replaces the Bose 301 IV (surround)
  • DB4S will replace the PV1D
For the receiver, I'll be going with the Marantz Cinema 40 (waiting for its release). If there's some major issues though with it at launch time, my backup plan for a receiver would be a Yamaha Aventage A8A.

I'm sticking with a 5.1 setup. Though with our sectional now a couple of feet closer to our TV (13 feet now), the current surrounds (301s) are now slightly behind us. I cannot remember what I was watching, but one particular sound sounded like it was directly behind me. That was cool. With our older seating position, the surrounds were right at our sides. The new 705 S3 will be about 6 inches further back than then current 301s. The latter being wall-mounted and with the 705 S3s, they will be on stands, so can move them a bit.
 
Kingnoob

Kingnoob

Audioholic Samurai
Just to wrap up this particular thread, I decided on replacing all speakers and got part of the shipment today.

I went with all B&W:
  • Pair of 702 S3 replaces the Bose 601 IV (mains)
  • HTM71 S3 replaces the B&W XTC (center)
  • Pair of 705 S3 replaces the Bose 301 IV (surround)
  • DB4S will replace the PV1D
For the receiver, I'll be going with the Marantz Cinema 40 (waiting for its release). If there's some major issues though with it at launch time, my backup plan for a receiver would be a Yamaha Aventage A8A.

I'm sticking with a 5.1 setup. Though with our sectional now a couple of feet closer to our TV (13 feet now), the current surrounds (301s) are now slightly behind us. I cannot remember what I was watching, but one particular sound sounded like it was directly behind me. That was cool. With our older seating position, the surrounds were right at our sides. The new 705 S3 will be about 6 inches further back than then current 301s. The latter being wall-mounted and with the 705 S3s, they will be on stands, so can move them a bit.
Nice congrats, I’ve not heard the 700 series unless that’s what magnolia Carrie’s haven’t been there in 8+ years. Does b & w have its own unique sound like Klipch except with midranges ?
 
W

Wardog555

Full Audioholic
Yes it's always better to have the surrounds behind you a bit rather than direct to the sides!

enjoy the significant upgrade over bose!
 
rsharp

rsharp

Audioholic
enjoy the significant upgrade over bose!
Did some auditioning of the mains (B&W 702 S3 vs Bose 601 IV). I didn't toe in the 702s though and arranged them so that the "new left" was to the left of the "old left", but "new right" was also to the left of the "old right".

First thing I did was to set the new levels via the receiver and note the dB difference between that and the old (so I could adjust volume in an attempt to play things back at the same volume). I also removed the subwoofer and set of the receiver to treat the mains as "Large".

I don't have a nice A/B box to easily switch between the speakers. So there was a decent delay between tests to power down receiver, swap cables, etc.

I'm not an audio person, so will be difficult for me to describe things here. For lack of better phrases, the new speakers sounded clearer; more clarity. Seemed easier to pick out individual sounds and instruments. For some songs, the audible differences were more substantial. For other songs, it was quite subtle.

I didn't yet play any heavy bass tunes. Will report back on that later. For now I wanted to focus on the higher frequences and clarity of voices.
 
rsharp

rsharp

Audioholic
I didn't yet play any heavy bass tunes. Will report back on that later.
Oh yea, no comparisson. The new towers have so much more bass than the Bose towers. So the Bose starting frequency response is definintely above 50 Hz. By how much, I don't know. Would not be surprised if its minimum is closer to 80 Hz.
 
newsletter

  • RBHsound.com
  • BlueJeansCable.com
  • SVS Sound Subwoofers
  • Experience the Martin Logan Montis
Top